McGrain v. Daugherty
As the Supreme Court pointed out in 1927:
We are of opinion that the power of inquiry-with process to enforce it-is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. It was so regarded and employed in American Legislatures before the Constitution was framed and ratified. Both houses of Congress took this view of it early in their history-the House of Representatives with the approving votes of Mr. Madison and other members whose service in the convention which framed the Constitution gives special significance to their action-and both houses have employed the power accordingly up to the present time. . . .
Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed. All this was true before and when the Constitution was framed and adopted. In that period the power of inquiry, with enforcing process, was regarded and employed as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to legislate-indeed, was treated as inhering in it. Thus there is ample warrant for thinking, as we do, that the constitutional provisions which commit the legislative function to the two houses are intended to include this attribute to the end that the function may be effectively exercised.
4 comments:
And this is why it's shaping up to be a potential Constitutional crisis if pushed.
Absolutely Congress has the right to compel testimony while, OTOH, the President has the right to extend Executive privilege to confidential discussions with his closests aides or else he couldn't function effectively.
I can't recall the specifics, but didn't Clinton ignore calls for inquiries on some of his staff over Whitewater?
Whatever....this whole thing is bullshit. Nice legal cite, though, and very instructive.
I don't know what the Whitewater deal is, but 31 of his closest aides were subpoenaed to testify 47 times.
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31351.pdf
And I don't buy this "he needs secrecy to do his job" line. Don't buy it now, and didn't buy it when Cheney was blocking inquiries about his energy task force.
C'mon, man, you can't think of any circumstances where a conversation or meeting might require secrecy and be protected by Executive privilege?
Perhaps in a perfect world, you are correct.
But in our world, a President has political enemies who will use any information they can get to discredit his policies or person.
If inquiries were fair as the driven snow and really did simply seek "the truth" this would not be up for debate. But you know for a fact that there are those on either side of the aisle who's mission is to "get" the Chief Executive by making a lot of noise over nothing. GOP did it to Clinton and the Dems are now doing it to Bush. Politically motivated most of the time and little if anything to do with the good of the country.
"But you know for a fact that there are those on either side of the aisle who's mission is to "get" the Chief Executive by making a lot of noise over nothing. GOP did it to Clinton and the Dems are now doing it to Bush."
Outing a CIA operative is nothing?
Ignoring laws he doesn't like is nothing? (iow, signing statements in place of vetos)
Putting troops in combat without enough rest or equipment is nothing?
Oh, believe me, John, when Waxman finally nails Bush, it's not going to be for lying about a blow job.
Post a Comment